Papers › DoomArena: A framework for Testing AI Agents Against Evolving Security Threats
DoomArena: A framework for Testing AI Agents Against Evolving Security Threats
Leo Boisvert, Mihir Bansal, Chandra Kiran Reddy Evuru, Gabriel Huang, Abhay Puri, Avinandan Bose, Maryam Fazel, Quentin Cappart, Jason Stanley, Alexandre Lacoste, Alexandre Drouin, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
We present DoomArena, a security evaluation framework for AI agents. DoomArena is designed on three principles: 1) It is a plug-in framework and integrates easily into realistic agentic frameworks like BrowserGym (for web agents) and τ-bench (for tool calling agents); 2) It is configurable and allows for detailed threat modeling, allowing configuration of specific components of the agentic framework being attackable, and specifying targets for the attacker; and 3) It is modular and decouples the development of attacks from details of the environment in which the agent is deployed, allowing for the same attacks to be applied across multiple environments. We illustrate several advantages of our framework, including the ability to adapt to new threat models and environments easily, the ability to easily combine several previously published attacks to enable comprehensive and fine-grained security testing, and the ability to analyze trade-offs between various vulnerabilities and performance. We apply DoomArena to state-of-the-art (SOTA) web and tool-calling agents and find a number of surprising results: 1) SOTA agents have varying levels of vulnerability to different threat models (malicious user vs malicious environment), and there is no Pareto dominant agent across all threat models; 2) When multiple attacks are applied to an agent, they often combine constructively; 3) Guardrail model-based defenses seem to fail, while defenses based on powerful SOTA LLMs work better. DoomArena is available at https://github.com/ServiceNow/DoomArena.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2504.14064")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 5 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · violated contract.
By repository: official repository: 6 samples from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
6 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from servicenow/doomarena. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
7c508037b40522af · report
db029d935f1b22a2 · report
7a0d2d77d6f59ad9 · report
1ee09ed9e841cd10 · report
2829a459708a8c31 · report
334c9c4e58c08dbe · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections